Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

Does Rooftop Solar Actually Help the Climate?

Inside episode five of Shift Key.

Rooftop solar installation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

For a few weeks now, Heatmap’s staff writer, Emily Pontecorvo, has been trying to figure out if installing rooftop solar panels on your home actually reduces carbon pollution in a systematic way. In other words: If you own a home, and install solar panels on it, are you doing anything to change how much fossil fuel gets burned in your region or around the world? Or — somewhat counterintuitively — will your panels just increase the cost of electricity near you while shifting demand for those fossil fuels around?

On this week’s episode, we try to answer these questions in a satisfying way. Princeton Professor Jesse Jenkins and I welcome Emily to the podcast to discuss the messy truth of distributed solar power.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from our conversation:

Emily Pontecorvo: My question is, if you're taking this solar-shaped hole out of electricity demand and that's displacing a cheaper utility-scale solar project, how do we go from that to you're not having an effect on emissions? Why is displacing that cheaper option than meaning that it's not as an effective climate action?

Jesse Jenkins: Well, because basically there's a certain amount of demand for solar-shaped production in the electricity system, right? And if you're reducing demand for electricity at exactly the time that a utility solar project would produce, then you're making the economics of building more solar incrementally worse as you add more distributed solar.

We still get basically the same amount of overall solar power in equilibrium. Like, you know, that's the amount that's profitable for people to invest in. It's just that you've shifted it from, again, cheaper projects at larger scale to more expensive projects at smaller scale, particularly in the U.S. We can come back to why the U.S. market is so, I think, broken and so much more expensive than it needs to be.

But particularly in the US, it is much more expensive, like three or four times more expensive, to build a megawatt worth of solar panels in 10 kilowatt increments at a bunch of different homes than it is to build one megawatt of solar on a big landfill or in a farm or on a big box store.

Pontecorvo
: So is the idea that, do you get less solar overall or is it?

Jenkins
: No, you basically get the same amount. You just get the same amount of solar and it's just more expensive.

Pontecorvo
: Why does it matter then? I mean, obviously it matters. It's a better outcome to have a cheaper clean electricity system. But ...

Jenkins: No, it's a great question.

So why does it matter? I mean, there's two questions.

You were asking before, like, does it amount to an effective climate action? Well, if it doesn't increase the overall supply of solar power in the regional grid, then no, it's not an effective climate action.

It might be fine for you to do it as a personal decision for other reasons like economics or feeling like you don't want to keep paying your utility because you don't like the utility and you want to generate your own power. Like there's lots of other reasons why you might do this. Or because you want to save land, right? We can talk about the sort of land-saving potential distributed generation, which I think is probably the best case for it.

But in terms of climate impact, it's null. If you're not increasing the supply of clean energy overall, you're just substituting one clean megawatt hour for another clean megawatt hour.

Why does it matter that we're making that megawatt hour more expensive? Well, at the end of the day, we have to keep our electricity supply affordable as we decarbonize. Both because it's important for equity reasons, because we don't want people who have a hard time paying their bills to have to pay a lot more. But from a climate perspective, because we have to radically expand the amount of electricity supply and decarbonize transportation and heating and industry and make hydrogen and do all these other things, that are going to require electricity to be relatively competitive against the fossil fuels that they're trying to displace in those sectors.

This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by…

KORE Power provides the commercial, industrial, and utility markets with functional solutions that advance the clean energy transition worldwide. KORE Power's technology and manufacturing capabilities provide direct access to next generation battery cells, energy storage systems that scale to grid+, EV power & infrastructure, and intuitive asset management to unlock energy strategies across a myriad of applications. Explore more at korepower.com.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
A destroyed house and a blueprint.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Recovering from the Los Angeles wildfires will be expensive. Really expensive. Insurance analysts and banks have already produced a wide range of estimates of both what insurance companies will pay out and overall economic loss. AccuWeatherhas put out an eye-catching preliminary figure of $52 billion to $57 billion for economic losses, with the service’s chief meteorologist saying that the fires have the potential to “become the worst wildfire in modern California history based on the number of structures burned and economic loss.” On Thursday, J.P. Morgan doubled its previous estimate for insured losses to $20 billion, with an economic loss figure of $50 billion — about the gross domestic product of the country of Jordan.

The startlingly high loss figures from a fire that has only lasted a few days and is (relatively) limited in scope show just how distinctly devastating an urban fire can be. Enormous wildfires thatcover millions of acres like the 2023 Canadian wildfires can spew ash and particulate matter all over the globe and burn for months, darkening skies and clogging airways in other countries. And smaller — and far deadlier fires — than those still do not produce the same financial roll.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Climate

Why the L.A. Fires Are Exceptionally Hard to Fight

Suburban streets, exploding pipes, and those Santa Ana winds, for starters.

Firefighters on Sunset Boulevard.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A fire needs three things to burn: heat, fuel, and oxygen. The first is important: At some point this week, for a reason we have yet to discover and may never will, a piece of flammable material in Los Angeles County got hot enough to ignite. The last is essential: The resulting fires, which have now burned nearly 29,000 acres, are fanned by exceptionally powerful and dry Santa Ana winds.

But in the critical days ahead, it is that central ingredient that will preoccupy fire managers, emergency responders, and the public, who are watching their homes — wood-framed containers full of memories, primary documents, material wealth, sentimental heirlooms — transformed into raw fuel. “Grass is one fuel model; timber is another fuel model; brushes are another — there are dozens of fuel models,” Bobbie Scopa, a veteran firefighter and author of the memoir Both Sides of the Fire Line, told me. “But when a fire goes from the wildland into the urban interface, you’re now burning houses.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate

What Started the Fires in Los Angeles?

Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.

Los Angeles.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Thursday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?

Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for some of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.

Keep reading...Show less
Green